Demonstration turnout is a crucial political resource for social movements. In this article, we investigate how mass media cover demonstration size. We develop a typology of turnout coverage and scrutinize the factors that drive turnout coverage. In addition, we test whether media coverage underestimates, reflects, or exaggerates "guesstimates" by organizers and police forces. Together, these analyses shed light on whether turnout coverage fits a logic of normalization or marginalization. We rely on a unique dataset of 428 demonstrations organized in Brussels (2003-2010). For these demonstrations, we have information on the turnout as reported in national television news, as counted by the police, and as expected by the organizers. We find that media present turnout most often as a fact, rarely as contentious (10 percent). Although few demonstrations pass the media gates, our study yields little to no evidence for a logic of turnout marginalization. Media coverage does not systematically underestimate demonstration size, nor does it blindly follow police counts. Rather, turnout coverage attests of a logic of normalization, following standard news-making practices. The more important the demonstration (size, lead item) and the larger the gap between police and organizer guesstimates, the more attention is paid to turnout in the news. Discussion centers on the generalizability and normative interpretation of the results.

中文翻译：

---

小于预期？媒体报道示范投票率的方法。

示威游行是社会运动的重要政治资源。在本文中，我们研究了大众媒体如何覆盖演示规模。我们制定了投票率覆盖率的类型，并仔细研究了影响投票率覆盖率的因素。此外，我们测试了媒体报道是否低估，反映或夸大了组织者和警察的“猜测”。总之，这些分析揭示了投票率覆盖率是否适合归一化或边缘化逻辑。我们依赖于在布鲁塞尔（2003-2010年）组织的428个示威游行的独特数据集。对于这些示威活动，我们掌握了国家电视新闻报道的投票率信息，这些信息已被警方统计，并得到了组织者的期望。我们发现，媒体出席投票最多的事实是事实，很少有争议（10％）。尽管很少有示威游行通过媒体，但我们的研究很少或没有证据表明投票率被边缘化。媒体报道不会系统地低估示威规模，也不会盲目跟随警察人数。相反，遵循标准新闻制作惯例，投票率证明了规范化的逻辑。示威活动（规模，主要项目）越重要，警察与组织者之间的距离就越大，人们对新闻投票的关注就越多。讨论的重点是结果的可概括性和规范性解释。遵循标准新闻发布惯例，投票率证明了规范化的逻辑。示威活动（规模，主要项目）越重要，警察与组织者之间的距离就越大，人们对新闻投票的关注就越多。讨论的重点是结果的可概括性和规范性解释。遵循标准新闻发布惯例，投票率证明了规范化的逻辑。示威活动（规模，主要项目）越重要，警察与组织者之间的距离就越大，人们对新闻投票的关注就越多。讨论的重点是结果的可概括性和规范性解释。